Warbird Information Exchange

I was given this picture from my uncle some 20+ years ago, and thought it would be of interest to someone here.
Any comments are welcome, as I know very little about this picture, other than what is on the back.

Stamped letters saying "Offical Photo US Army Air Forces".
and then in my uncles hand writting "Smoky Hill Air Base Salina, Kansas 1947".

I cleaned the image up as best as I could, and I can post the original scan if needed.
Look closely behind the tail gun, and I think you can see what looks like a track driven tug, that's kinda interesting in itself.

After reading the post about "Doc", my mind was on B-29s, and this was the result.

I hope you enjoy it, and can share anything you may know about, "Ruff Rider"

Leon

_________________
Phormer Phantom Painter

Thanks, Leon!

That serial number is certainly close to another B-29 I'm somewhat familiar with!

Scott

Which one is that Scott, if you don't mind me asking?

Leon

_________________
Phormer Phantom Painter

This one, Leon:

FIFI is 44-62070, so these two could have shared apron space at Renton theoretically. Dig that paint job!

The photo your uncle took shows how the B-29 training fleet was equipped during the last few months of the war and on into peacetime. Notice how the propellers have aluminum painted cuffs--that was a wartime T.O. applied to 2AF training planes to assist with engine cooling, but I haven't seen any pictures of actual WWII combat '29s with the cuffs. (Except those with Curtiss props.) That black camouflage was discussed at length on another thread, and seems to have been depot applied to a fair number of later Renton airplanes. If you have any more pictures of your uncle's I would love to see them as I am working on a history of the Midwest AAF bases.

I am also putting out a request for ANY photos of 44-62070 that were taken from 1945 to the mid-fifties. We have been searching for pictures of FIFI in her original scheme for a while now.
Scott

Holy smokes, Scott! Could you not have found a more hideous picture of FIFI's old, old paint scheme anywhere? Geez!

Gary

Nope. That's about as bad as it gets. The nose gear looks nice, though.

Scott

Hey guys, do either one of you have a current picture of Fifi?
I see that some planes that are painted silver, to resemble a natural finish, just never look quite right. (EAAs B-17 comes to mind).
They look more like an off gray, than silver.
How is the colors determined when painting a plane that's supposed to look like bare aluminium?

I know when I first saw FiFi at Oshkosh, back in the 70s, she looked alot better with a more believable silver finish.

Does the bird get stripped to bare metal when repainted, or is it just sanded and repainted?

I know when I painted A/C while in the USAF, that they would have to go through a weights and balance test, from time to time, to determine if they were carring to much paint thickness, and if they were, we sanded them down with 80 grit until most of the paint was removed.

I know paint adds ALOT to the overall weight to an aircraft, and I was just curious if that sort of thing is something that is kept in check with operational warbirds, seeing regular maintainance.

Thanks !!

Leon

_________________
Phormer Phantom Painter

Tug is probably an M2 Cletrac.

http://www.skylighters.org/encyclopedia/cletrac.html

Leon,

Here is a photo of FIFI taken fairly recently? (I'm not sure exactly when)


I would certainly like a Cletrac of my very own. Does any WIXer own one?
How many of these little jewels were produced? Will Santa bring one if I'm better this year?

Scott

Thanks Scott, she looks pretty good in that picture.

Leon

_________________
Phormer Phantom Painter

I've seen pictures of a Cletrac moving A-26s at Pusan during the Korean War. They were 95 BS aircraft.

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

I had another question about B-29s, in general.
Were the Curtiss Electric props an early production item, and later changed to the Hamilton Standard props, or was there a problem with the Curtiss props?

Thanks again,
Leon

_________________
Phormer Phantom Painter

Leon,

The Curtiss propellers were late production. The first ones on production airplanes went on the Silverplate 509th Composite Group aircraft as far as I can determine. They were standard equipment on the B-32.

The Curtiss props, being electric, had wiring and other conehead issues that sometimes sent them into reverse pitch or just changed pitch at bad times. A B-36 (also equipped with Curtiss Electric props) was lost with part of the crew at Carswell due to a switch or relay reversing some of the propellers during takeoff. The flight crew was initially blamed for the accident, but was finally exhonorated when the same thing happened to another aircraft without it being wadded up.

It's interesting that the Air Force bought back a bunch of B-32 Curtiss propellers prior to their scrapping at Walnut Ridge in the late forties so they could be used on B-29 tankers and recon birds. Evidently the Ham Standards were having oil congealing problems at very high altitudes and cold temperatures and the electrics fixed the problem.

A little personal sidenote to this propeller story--a friend of ours, now passed away, was one of the prop specialists with the 9th Bomb Group stationed on Tinian when the 509th showed up. He said they were absolutely flabbergasted the first time they saw a 509th airplane pull up to a hardstand, a ground crewman hooked up a short towbar to steer the nosewheels with, and they backed her into her spot with the props in reverse. Godspeed, Jim--I think of you every time I see FIFI.

Scott

Interesting.
I was always under the impression that the Curtiss props were used at the beginning of the B-29 production.
Any after war- Korea pictures I've seen, always appear to have the Hamilton props.
Were they both splinned the same to make them easily interchangable?
What kind are on FIFI?
Were the different props used back and forth, through the cource of production then?

From what I remember about "Kee Bird", she had the Curtiss props, but Hamiltons were used when she was re-engined.
Was this because the Hamiltons are easier to find today over the Curtiss props?

Am I right to assume that the picture of "Ruff Rider" has Hamiltons?

Thanks, this is all very interesting.

Leon

_________________
Phormer Phantom Painter

Yup, Ruff Rider has Hamilton Standards identical to what FIFI has today. There were two styles of blades, non-cuffed and the cuffed style seen in your photo. The combat airplanes in WWII all had non-cuffed (as far as I can tell from photos) and the cuffed design was a modification done on training airplanes here in the states. I have records from the Nebraska training field maintenance departments that refers to installing the cuffs per a Technical Order. I have not tracked down why none were sent overseas during WWII with the cuffed variety, but some flew combat in Korea with them installed. Here are a couple of photos to give you an idea of the two designs:
Non-cuffed original design:


Cuffed version modified at 2AF bases--in this instance at Walker AAF, Kansas:


Swapping from the Hydromatic props to Curtiss entailed much more than just changing the propellers themselves. The electrics had slip-rings and brushes on the engine case to transmit power to the hub motor of the prop, lots of wiring from the engines to the flight engineer and pilot stations, and various other electrical relays and equipment that wasn't required with the Hamilton Standards. Instead there had to be a prop governor on each engine and associated wiring and controls in the airplane to use the Hydromatics. That's an over-simplification, but you get the idea.

There weren't a huge number of B-29's built with the Curtiss props it seems. Martin Omaha delivered a batch with them after the Silverplate airplanes. Some were modified to use the electrics for special missions as well.

Scott